Interview with Peter Jackson on LoTR Bloopers 790
erth writes "Newsweek has an interview with Peter Jackson asking him what he thinks about some of the most famous and/or obvious bloopers in the LoTR series. Moviemistakes.com has more Fellowhip of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King bloopers as well for your snickering pleasure." I just wanted to give my props to Jackson and all- we took off early yesterday to see the final film. It was everything I hoped for... except for the bits that I expect I'll have to wait for the extended edition DVD to see. And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers.
Joke in Topic! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Joke in Topic! (Score:5, Funny)
MySQL Mistake #8: Failure to close connections properly will bite you in the ass during a Slashdotting.
Re:Joke in Topic! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the likely problem here is that the site is making use of PHP's ability to hold the connection to the database open, rather than doing an open/close on every query. This saves the overhead of establishing the connection on each page view, and is often a good thing.
However, each instance of Apache will open and hold the connection, so if you have a config that allows more Apache child processes than you've allowed concurrent connections under MySQL, you see this. The aggravating thing is that neither Apache nor MySQL are necessarily swamped when this happens -- you've just got more Apache processes than the configured number of concurrent MySQL connections.
Re:Joke in Topic! (Score:5, Informative)
Most people who use PHP/MySQL use something like mysql_pconnect() to use persistant connection to speed the site up. However, that backfires on you when your site gets heavy load and you run out of connections. There is a warning about this in the PHP docs mysql-pconnect [php.net]
A better solution would be a resource pool manager for PHP/MySQL that starts to free the connections when a certain numbers of configurable connections get in the pool to try to help with the infamous "Too many connections in /usr/XXX" MySQL error. Though, in the end, there are only so many connections you can get through a little box. Put the www.moviemistakes.com [moviemistakes.com] site on a nice 4-8 way box with the same setup and see how well it can do against Oracle. I am not knocking Oracle, I think it is the best Enterprise class DB out there. It comes down to using the right tool for the right job. Orcale for a dynamic web site is overkill and too expensive. Orcale for financial, e-commerce, data warehousing is a much better fit IMO.
Re:Joke in Topic! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Blooper? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he doesn't get it this year the Oscars will become irrelevant. It's just that obvious.
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most accepted that PJ would get one for the last one after all were released.
Also, the movies were all filmed at once so you could consider the performance to be one big production simply because during production, it was on
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Informative)
Since there's so much work in post production (editing, CGI etc), it only makes sense to film all the live stuff for all three movies at once, so you free up your actors so they can get on with their careeers while you sit in a room with geeks and com
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably the worst part for Jackson's chances is that most of the Academy members likely haven't read the books, and there is a popular perception that the movies are more geared to appeasing Tolkein fans instead of a broader audience. All the same, I'll be watching in March, hoping against hope that he wins. Why? Because it will give him that much more clout with the studios on future projects...
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in L.A. and one of the more noxious Oscar-season practices is for publicists to actually visit the nursing homes where academy members are clustered for special "viewings" -- I have three academy members who live in my apartment building: all of them are over 60.
Conventional wisdom at this point is that "RoTK" is this year's 300 lb. gorilla at the Oscars. Where New Line is going to end up screwing themselves is that they are submitting for four potential nominees in Best Supporting Actor and two in Best Supporting Actress. Acadmey voters will tend to go elsewhere if split. See New Line Cinema's awards-shill for RoTK [newlineawards.com] for more information (Flash Required).
Maybe the Oscars are irrelevant to you but they are a cottage industry here in L.A., not to mention one of the top rated shows in the world every year. Finally, a lot of non-blockbuster movies and smaller studios depend on a nomination if not an award for their marketing: The Pianist did most of their box office and almost all of their DVD sales as a result of their Oscars.
Los Angeles (and Hollywood) is a factory town, like any other factory town anywhere in the world -- our products just tend to get noticed more. Don't kid yourself: a lot of people's year-round financial well-being depends on the Oscars, both in Los Angeles and around the world.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, man, you've got to watch better movies, whether or not LoTR is worthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should Peter Jackson get the Oscar?
Its a big trilogy. It has very nice CG. Theme music is great.
But is this worthy of a "Best Director" award?
Any other reason besides "OMG ITS PETER JACKSON. HE MADE MY CHILDHOOD DREAMS COME TRUE! AIIIEEEEE!"?
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that Peter Jackson deserves the best director because of the amazing amount of quality work that he put into the picture. No director in recent memory has gone to such lengths to push his movie to great heights as has been seen by Peter Jackson. He had fantastic attention to detail in the writing and editing of the script, the presentation of the actors, and the visual details that captured the very spirit of Tolkien's work.
It is an understatement to say that the movie was massive in scale, and he coordinated everything with amazing skill while keeping the enthusiasm high with all of the people involved. Name me another director this year that has put so much work and accomplished anywhere near the same results. While there are certainly many fine directors out there, Peter Jackson deserves attention for his courage, innovation, and just plain determination. He has created a masterpiece the likes of which we are not likely to see again for many years.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does he deserve the Oscar?
Because he did it. LoTR was the most ambitious movie shoot EVER, just about any way you look at it. This was a MASSIVE undertaking. A typical movie shoot runs somewhere between 50 and 90 days. LoTR ran almost a year and half, and that's not counting the many, many, hours of additonal shooting done after early cuts were assembled. Many have tried to do movies on this scale. PJ is remarkable for being the first to pull it off completly. I think the movies have revived a great traditon in filmmaking, the epic, a style perhaps best typified by the David Lean epics of the 1960's (Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence Of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago). Lean did a fantastic job on those pictures, and did amazing things. However, he had the advantage of working in more-or-less the real world. PJ had to invent his world, bring Tolkiens written words to life. He managed to avoid turning LoTR into another Apocolypse Now, a movie, that while grandiose in scope, comes off as disjointed, and at times forced. Jackson managed to do what most had called impossible, bring Tolkiens work to the big screen in a way that is both accessible to the masses, and yet true to the source material. There have been very few movies that have walked that tightrope, and made it to the other side. THAT is why he deserves the Oscar.
Re:Blooper? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any way not from a film history class, anyway. The first feature length movie was D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", which today could have just been called "How the Ku Klux Klan Saved Dixie". This was fifty years before the civil rights movement, but it was still a controversial point of view, so his second feature was a kind of apology for it: 1916's Intolerance [gildasattic.com], about the fall of Babylon. The movie involved a literal cast of thousands, as well as both the construction and complete demoloition of an entire city. Nothing in the following century has come close to the size of "Intolerance", with the near exceptions of "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings".
I don't mean to imply that the LOTR series hasn't been huge -- obviously, it has. But if you try to argue that nothing comes close, you're being ignorant. It has been done before, a century ago.
My main question, which remains to be seen, is whether or not anyone will remember the LOTR movies a century for now, or even a quarter of a century. They're obviously big, but I'm not yet convinced that they're the massive landmarks that all the fanboys seem to be convinced they are. Time alone will tell how these movies, and Peter Jackson behind them, are remembered.
because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a big trilogy
To my understanding (from the extended DVDs), so big, that it took three completely separate locations for filming (aside from the studio sets), combining to stretch out over 14 months. For a single person to (follow me here), direct this massive undertaking, and painstakingly boil it down the the parts that matter requires great directing skills.
It has very nice CG
For which the pencil-to-paper decision making goes all the way back to 1997. Again, Jackson was the goto guy that approved this stuff. For someone to put together a team (Weta) that brought about the Ents (prior to which, few artists were able to render to any likeable levels), and the unbelievably detailed Lothlorien, again, takes great directing skills.
Theme music is great
Well, it didn't come off of a CD. Again, much time was spent by (of all people) Jackson, in choosing the music and directing its specifics with RE to the movie.
But is this worthy of a "Best Director" award?
I can't think of a single movie made in the last decade that is as massive an undertaking as LOTR was. Jackson was the man that directed all of it. Even if you don't appreciate things like its character development, or the music, for one person to be the nexus for this creation, IMO (and clearly, many other lowbrow movie fans), certainly demands recognition.
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not for this little black duck and I'm not alone. PJ and the wrecking crew (as I have affectionately come to call them) told a very nice story that has much in common with The Lord of the Rings but it was far from the world most of the fans have come to know and love from reading the books.
There were simply too many sweeping changes made to the very fiber of many of the
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... let's run down the list, shall we? This is from someone who, while he might not be as big a fanboy as some, has read the books 5-6 times through (I've lost track), and also plays Middle Earth Role-Playing in a very long-running campaign, so we discuss LOTR *a lot*.
Gandalf?
Seems 100% accurate to the books.
*All* the hobbits
Dead on, at least characterization-wise. Might have missed some of the great lines using these characters, but nothing that jumped out at me.
Aragorn
Again, don'
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for this not being award material, do you think movies like Cold Mountain and Mystic River are?
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
The masses can appreciate the finished product but only the artist can truly appreciate what it took to create this masterpiece of film making.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. Bear with me for a second here. For contrast I'm going to compare to David Lynch's "Dune"
First off - if Lynch had been allowed to make it a 4 hour extended DVD then most of the movie's problems would've arguably been solved. With that in mind, the style Lynch used was an odd dark mixture, the lighting was convoluted, the scenes were framed in a very "staged" manner, the set was just plain over-the-top weird, and the score by Toto was incredibly melodramatic. I loved it. It fit perfectly with the mood Herbert developed so well in the novel. It fit perfectly with a quasi-religious messianic jihad sci-fi story set in the year 10000AD.
Back to LotR. Tolkein's storytelling is highly grandoise while still being deeply intimate, his elves are glowing with mystique, his scenes are rich and fantastic, even the colors seem saturated when reading the novels. What you describe as horribly framed, overly lit, cheesy and overboard, I would describe simply as 'Fantasy', especially Tolkien fantasy. Peter used that style I think in a similar manner to the way Lynch went over the top with his style in filming Dune, albeit in a more accessable, less esoteric way. And I think in both cases it worked GREAT. Sci-Fi is funky strange worlds. Fantasy is fantastic magical worlds. It's only cheesy when some goof applies it to say.. The Titanic.
Re:Blooper? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well DUH! Show me a movie that does. You can't take 1000+ pages of events that span months and compress them into 9 hours without losing something.
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Well DUH! Show me a movie that does.
To Kill a Mockingbird
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Funny)
Must have been reading the _really_ big font version then ehh?
Cinematic impact (Score:5, Insightful)
# Cheap thrills. For example, in Moria, when all the orcs surround them, and then run away. It's just stupid, it doesn't make any sense.
It's tension. They're completely surrounded and about to die, then suddenly, all the Orcs run away, signalling something MUCH more evil and powerful approaching that even they fear. It's just some nice tension to give the appearance of the Balrog more impact. You find it "cheesy" because you're a book purist.
# Cheap action-flick fight scenes. So, there's nine people standing on a narrow staircase out in the middle of nowhere, with thousands of orcs shooting at them, and they all miss. Legolas is shooting at orcs spread out, behind shadows and in cover, and hits every one. Now, orcs aren't as good as elves, but they're not *that* bad.
There weren't "thousands" of Orcs. Looked like a few dozen. Why wouldn't they be poor archers? They're just a bunch of Moria orcs trying to hit some little targets on a distant bridge. Of course Legolas would hit some (it's not shown whether he hits every one), because he's a skilled Elf bowman. You don't like it because you're a book purist.
# Cheesy dramatic scenes. Frodo gets hurt, and all the action stops. Gandalf "dies", and all the action stops. Boromir dies three or four times.
Oh, stop. Borimier dies once. The action stops to give the scenes more impact. My brother who hadn't read the Fellowship, freaked out when Gandalf fell. "I didn't know he died!" In fact, these movies use slow-motion way more tastefully than the two Matrix movies. It gives the death scenes a sense of surrealism.
All in all, you're just a book purist who didn't like the fact that these are movies and have to behave like movies.
Re:Blooper? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't agree. It's been a bit over a year since I've last reread the LOTR books, but the one thing I remember is the complete lack of any kind of dramatic tension whatsoever for the first half or so of the work, and then, toward the end, turning it WAY up. I thought Peter Jackson conveyed the escalating tension and drama nicely, as well as including the necessary reprieve from the tension. I got exactly the same feeling from the Shire scenes as I did from when I first read the book, and that says a lot to me.
The first two movies, if done exactly like the book's tone, would have been as boring as if they'd stayed in the Shire the whole time and lived their simple little lives like happy little folk. I still love the books, but honestly, even the tense moments in the first half of the book were quickly dampened by the gushy feelgoodness they found around nearly every corner.
I'm no film savant, and I'm sure there were many things I don't recall that Peter may have goofed on (Gimli does comes to mind however), but I think that this trilogy is probably the best possible result of a LOTR movie, at least for this decade.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Insightful)
They made Denethor a complete prick, and didn't explain why he went mad. In the book it's clear that Denethor was origionaly a strong and honorable man, but that he had a nervous breakdown because of the immense pressure he was facing - such as: Contesting the will of Sauron with the Palantir, the recent death of Boromor, the "impending" death of Farimir, worry of Aragorn taking the thr
Speaking of bloopers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Speaking of bloopers (Score:5, Informative)
Dupe it is! I thought it was another interview about the third movie, it's not!
It's the same Dec 1's article form the previus post
Not necessarily a blooper... (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidence, OR FATE!???
On a related note... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:On a related note... (Score:5, Informative)
SD'd (Score:3, Informative)
Damn dude, what can I say.
Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Book (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Book (Score:3, Funny)
I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:5, Informative)
Here is more info:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/3977.html
Usurper_ii
All the movie titles (Score:5, Funny)
2001-The Fellowship of the Ring
2002-The Two Towers
2003-The Third One
2004-Episode I - The Hobbit
2005-FotR Special Edition
2006-Book of Lost Tales
2007-Scribbles in Tolkien's Math Book
2008-Dude, Where's my Ring?
2009-What Hobbits Want
2010-Bilbo Brockovich
2011-All the Pretty Hobbits
2012-O, Bilbo, Where art Thou?
2013-Crouching Gollum, Hidden Balrog
2014-Orc by Orcwest
(Lost by my brain, but found again here. [quazack.com])
Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:5, Informative)
If you've actually read The Hobbit, the Dwarves are basically all about comic relief. Everything from their names alll being similar to each other, to the silly songs they sing. They are rather comical. I always assumed that Peter Jackson used The Hobbit as a reference to flesh out Gimili's character for the movies.
you have to admit, in The Hobbit the dwarves are definitely silly.
Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:3, Insightful)
There were greed and self centered, but never comic relief.
Peter Jackson destroyed the Gimili character.
msnbc blooper (Score:5, Funny)
wow, i'm a nerd.
Re:msnbc blooper (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:msnbc blooper (Score:5, Funny)
Bloopers or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
"To Kill a Mockingbird" is the best conversion IMO.
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
****SPOILERS******
****SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS******
****DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT ASPECTS SPOILED*****
Things added in that sucked:
Gandalf on an Eagle. Merry at the Black Gate. The King of the Dead speaking. Arwen "dying" unless Aragorn finishes Sauron. A Smeagol/Deagol murder scene that lasted far too long (not so much a "sucks 'cause it was added" but a "sucks 'cause it took too bloody long").
Things removed that sucked:
No Houses of Healing, no confrontation of Saruman (tho it's in the EE DVD plans, if I heard right...), Sam not using the One Ring, no Scouring. No interplay between Faramir and Eowyn.
Things changed that sucked:
Denethor ('Nuff said). Faramir (I complained equally about his treatment in TTT). Sam's comfort level with physical violence done to Smeagol. The light levels overall (There were so many comments along the lines of "It sure is dark out here" when you can clearly see that IT'S NOT DARK. The scenes at the Brandywine Crossing and in Bree were "darker" than any scene on the fields of Pellenor). Galadriel's light equating to a mere Mag Lite. Shelob being FAR smaller than I had ever seen her described in the books. Unending slow-mo scenes. There were several such scenes where a quick Pythonesque cut to an assemblage of Pukel people shouting "Get on with it!" would not have seemed out of place.
Gripes aside, scenes that rocked:
Rohirrim charging into the Orc lines. The trebuchets of Minas Tirith. The slaying of the Witch king. Gandalf pulling "a Yoda" and going spin crazy on the walls of MT.
Um, which book did you read? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ring seemed much more like the one of The Hobbit when Sam used it.
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually finished rereading (for the umpteenth time) ROTK this week, then I saw the movie yesterday. Everyone's talking about this minor change or that minor change, but no one mentioned the MAJOR change. It's almost like people read the book decades ago, and remember only a haze distorted memory.
People quibble over the portrayal of Denethor, but actually it's quite close to the book. The real change here was the despair turning to madness a much earlier. And then people quibbled over the portrayal of Faramir in the third movie, when in fact it's quite accurate, not withstanding trivial changes to his dialogue.
And people are bitching about Sam inflicting physical violence on Gollum. Huh? Now I know for sure they didn't read the books! Sam beat Gollum with his Ithilien staff to the point of breaking the staff (and presumably Gollum's arm). True, it didn't happen at the same point, but there's nothing out of character for Sam to beat the stuffing out of Sneaker.
But the MAJOR change no one talks about is the Army of the Dead! They don't belong at Minas Tirith. Aaaargh! Although I can understand the cinematic reasons for them being there, and fits the tone of the book, it's still probably the largest plot change in the movie. But no one has mentioned it. They're too obsessed with the trivial.
dupe dupe dupe (Score:5, Funny)
silly taco (Score:5, Funny)
and apparently too busy to edit your comment.
:) i kid because i love.
ToME : Open Source Tolkien game (Score:5, Interesting)
ToME is great for being very faithful and compliant to Tolkien's world. Ok, maybe it's not Middle-Earth Online [lordoftherings.com], but it's free and honestly, this game is freaking addictive !
Re:ToME : Open Source Tolkien game (Score:3, Interesting)
Jackson the liar? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet on the DVD he says "I don't know what people are talking about" - and it doesn't sound like he is kidding, simply being serious??
Re:Jackson the liar? (Score:3, Funny)
Nathan
Grinning in the dark... (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdotted (of course) (Score:5, Informative)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 29 mistakes
Revealing: In the first scene in Edoras (the capital city of Rohan). The first pan over Edoras: You can see the pan is shown in reverse, with the smoke going into the chimney and the fire at the end is burning backwards. The flags are fluttering oddly as well.
Revealing: When Theoden is talking to Eowyn before he dies one can see that he is wearing contact lenses.
Factual error: Hobbits can't grow beards, yet Samwise Gamgee has stubble in most of his close-ups in Return Of The King. Even if they could grow beards, it seems unlikely they would be in a position to be shaving on that journey.
Continuity: In one of the final scenes of the movie, Frodo is writing in the book "There and Back Again," adding his own story. As he is finishing, he clutches the wound he received from one of the Nazgul in "The Fellowship of the Ring." In the hand that he uses clutch the wound, he still holds the quill pen. At the same time, Sam is entering Bag-End. When the camera angle changes, Frodo is still clutching the wound, but the pen has found its way into the ink jar.
Audio problem: In the scene where Gandalf enters the chambers of Gondor to speak with the Steward of the throne, the sound of his staff striking the floor matches the action in sporadic patches only. In the shot where he departs, that specific sound is consistent.
Continuity: When Gollum drops the lembas from the ridge, you see the leaves it was wrapped in fluttering away, and the wafers fall roughly straight down. However, when Sam finds it later, the lembas is still mostly wrapped in the leaves, with only a few morsels broken off and laying around unwrapped.
Revealing: In the scene where the paciderm animals of Mordor are introduced in the battle, there's a shot that pans the front of the line of them. One animal has wood connecting its larger tusks, complete with barbs jutting out from the wood. As the orcs flee to regroup behind the animals, several run through the contraption unharmed.
Continuity: In the scene where Frodo is helped by Galadriel in Shelob's lair (in the "dream sequence") he lays on the ground. In his hair on HIS right side (viewers' left) is what appears to be some clovers or leaves or grass. The camera cuts to Galadriel then back to Frodo, the thing in his hair is gone. The camera cuts to her again and back to Frodo, the thing is back in his hair.
Continuity: In the scene where Frodo is tied up in the Tower, part of his face and hair is partly covered in spider webbing - the only opening is his face where Sam parted it to see that he had "died". After a few scenes of orcs, the next shot shows that Frodo has clean hair/face and his hands are still tied up.
Continuity: When Gandalf enters the castle of Rohan, the shot of his back shows him holding his staff in a vertical position. When the shot turns to his front, he is holding his staff in an horizontal position. The shot turns to his back, and the staff is again in the vertical position. Then the shot turns again to his front, showing his staff in a horizontal position.
Continuity: The scene where Pippin and Gandalf are talking about "the end" in Minas Tirith, during the battle of Pelenor fields. In one close-up shot, Gandalf's sword blade is shiny and silver. In the next shot, it's coated in black orc blood, then in the next shot, it's silver again.
Continuity: In the scene where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli enter the cave where the dead army resides, Aragorn pulls a torch seemingly from nowhere (especially interesting considering that his horse, and consequently all supplies, have run off in the scene before).
Continuity: When Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, Gimli etc, ride up to the gates of Mordor, the main characters go up to the gate on their own to demand it opens. The trails the horses leave on the way towards the gate are different to those that you see in the shot when they retreat after the gate ha
Re:Slashdotted (of course) (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, and I imagine that this will be addressed in the Extended Version of Return of the King. As they weren't shown drinking the Entish water in the theatrical release of TTT, there shouldn't be a reference to it in the theatrical release of RotK. This isn't a blooper at all.
Re:Slashdotted (of course) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I got 4! (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of research into medieval tactics. Cavalry almost never fights mounted unless the enemy infantry is already scattered. Ever seen "Braveheart"? William Wallace hardly thought that trick up; in fact mounted cavalry has almost never defeated formed infantry.
Does this count as a blooper? (Score:4, Funny)
The Finger (Score:3, Interesting)
Stock footage number 5 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost like PJ took stock footage of people running out of a cave, added some lava, and threw Rudy and Elijah in front of a blue screen.
I thought i was watching a classic giant bug movie.
Google cache links :) (Score:5, Informative)
The Two Towers [google.com]
Unfortunately there is no cache of the Return of the King.
I stopped reading sites like these.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus in some instances it reduced my enjoyment of the film to have the stuff pointed out, where I might not have noticed it otherwise.
So just a small warning.
How about this "blooper?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about this "blooper?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Return of the King - Ending was crap (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's reasonable on topic, I'd like to voice my thoughts on the Return of the King.
I walked in with advance warning that right about the point where you think the movie is finished, be prepared for another 20 minutes of wrap-up. Even knowing this, I was totally unprepared for the lame and completely unncessary scenes at the end and honestly it ruined the experience for me.
First of all...okay, Frodo and Sam are good friends, but could Peter Jackson have made it any more homosexual? The audience where I watched kept laughing every time there was a scene with Frodo and Sam all dewy-eyed staring at each other with sappy music. I swear for a split second everyone thought Frodo was going to kiss Sam on the lips as they said goodbye at the boat.
Second, after blowing our load at the battle of the black gate, all everyone wants to do is roll over and go to sleep. I don't know if my experience was the same as everyone else's but for the next twenty minutes I witnessed the combined figiting of 300+ people, standing up, then sitting back down, murmuring, sighing loudly, leaving, groaning...it was pretty damn distracting and unpleasant.
Now, giving that this movie is aimed at the masses and not particularly at die-hard LOTR fans (given that the plot was changes to give it more mainstream appeal), why in God's name would Peter Jackson decide to throw in all this extra crap at the end which a) pissed off real fans because it wasn't the Scourging b) pissed off mainstream fans because it was irrelavant crap.
Everyone I talked to was in agreement that the movie should have ended with (ugh) Gandalf on the eagles rescuing the hobbits. Particularly the view from on high with Frodo flying over the mountain. Everyone at that point knows they are safe, that the bad guys are gone, good guys win, fade to "The End" and stick the rest of the movie on DVD.
But no...cut to the coronation scene. Okay, we'll indulge Jackson and sit through a completely predictable closing scene. Oh he gets the girl, yay. Oh, the hobbits are honored okay...allright, perfect ending now, right?
Nope...okay, back to the shire, back to the pub, having a nice homey scene. Clink the glasses, hey that's a perfect place to end it, we've come full circle from Shire to Shire. End, right?
NO...now we drag Bilbo's withered carcass around to take him to the Elf ship. Why? What mainstream fan even remembers this all started three years ago with Bilbo? As far as anyone knows, he died of old age from not having the ring. You leave Sauruman's ending out of the movie, a character that played a much more pivotal role, but instead show what happens to basically a bit character? Why not tell me the life story of the doorkeeper at the bar too? I really want to know if he was able to pursue his dream of becoming a lute player. Okay, so Bilbo asks about the ring, Frodo lost it, cute scene. Cut, it's a wrap.
AAAAAAAAH NO. Now we have an interminally long and weepy scene at the boat. Oh, Frodo's going too? Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo. Okay, he's going on board with Bilbo and Gandalf, the book has been turned over to Sam, and now the ship sails into the sunset in terrible movie cliche number #412. Fade out...perfect time for "The End"
MOTHER#@#@!%!% JACKSON NO DAMMIT...(sound of entire audience groaning at once) we are back at the shire to show Sam coming home? WTF? Did anyone think he was going to run away and go whoring? We knew he was married and had kids. Why do we need to see it? Who cares? And so we end staring at the round hobbit door...did the movie even begin with a round hobbit door...ah forget it, is this the end?
Okay...The End. Now I can go take that leak I've been holding in for a kidney-busting three and a half hours.
WTF? My four hour validation doesn't cover Return of the King? I have to pay an extra $4 because no one from the theater bothered to memo the parking staff about the insane length of the number one box office draw?
And maybe now you can see why I didn't particularly enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped.
-JoeShmoe
.
Not a blopper. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:w00t!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, when I saw it last night, the movie cut out right when Aragorn faced off against a troll in front of the Black Gate. After about 20 minutes and a theater employee apologizing, it came back on.
Re:Slashdotted Already (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Informative)
Gandalf cannot touch the ring or he will be corrupted by it. The ring would use gandalf's power against everyone and very bad things would ensue. The reason that Frodo is able to hold the ring and not instantly turn bad is because hobbits have no inherent powers of their own, also, hobbits seem to be more resistant to the rings corrupting influence. All things that you would know if you had ever read the books.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would only be a flaw if Gandalf had an alternative option that wasn't "fundamentally dangerous"
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, sounds like a US Presidential election!
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Informative)
Fellowship, p12. (Concerning Hobbits): ... The Stoors lingered long by the banks of the Great River Anduin, and were less shy of Men.
Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somwhat different breeds: Harfoot, Stoors, and Fallohides.
Return, p414. (Appendix F):
Footnote 1: The Stoors of the Angle, who returned to Wilderland, had already adopted the Common Speech; but Deagol and Smeagol are names in the Mannish language of the region near the Gladden.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer, of course, is that LotR is an epic -- a story. The most tactically wise move wasn't the most appropriate move to the tale of growth and struggle against
The final answer to the Eagle question (Score:4, Funny)
The standard answer everyone gives is that the Eaglers weren't so concerned with the world of Men, but that answer never flew for me (pardon the pun), because there was more obvious logic to turn to.
Which is more discreet? A flock of HUGE FUCKING EAGLES, or two little Hobbits sneaking into Mordor and dumping it into Mount Doom?
I don't get why people don't think it through. The first thing Sauron would do if a bunch of HUGE FUCKING EAGLES came flying over the borders of Mordor is just send flying Nazghul after them, and probably also strike them down with flaming lava or wind or something. Plus, Sauron would immediately know where the Ring was, what they're trying to do with it, etc. All plans would instantly be revealed before they even really entered Mordor (he'd immediately see a flock of HUGE FUCKING EAGLES coming from Gondor, no doubt).
Meanwhile, two little Hobbits--a little unimportant, insignificant race completely out of Sauron's mind and most everyone else's in Middle-Earth--sneaks into Morder essentially through a backdoor and actually climbs Mount Doom as Sauron's gaze is distracted by Gondor forces.
Having HUGE FUCKING EAGLES flying it there is an incredibly stupid idea. What makes the Hobbit idea great is that it's incredibly stupid, but so stupid that it's out of Sauron's mind, which makes it the best plan of action (what other choice was there?). That's why the story works so well, and how Sam and Frodo actually made it. Nobody even considers or regards Hobbits. They're not an essential race at all in the mythology of Middle-Earth. Orcs and other baddies don't even really care all that much about them, so they're constantly underestimated. Middle-Earth is so concerned with the main controlling races of Men and Orcs and Sauron and Elves, that out of the blue, a couple of creatures of one of the lesser races from some goofy, ignorant place called the Shire sneaks in and drops the ring in the mountain.
The Eagles only come flying in after the Ring is destroyed, and it's safe for them to.
So, no, HUGE FUCKING EAGLES flying in doesn't even work logically.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Eagles (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ring drew the Nazgul to it.
The Ring caused the Council to argue and fight until Frodo spoke up.
The Ring corrupted Boromor without him ever touching it.
Saruman's research into the Rings of Power and his desire for the One ultimately corrupted him. Granted the Palantir didn't help any but by then he was already on his way down.
Even Gandalf said that if the Ring were to buried under Minis Tirith not used, it would corrupt Gondor and the
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) LOTR is not set upon this earth. It is set in a world similar to ours in many ways. Nonetheless, the telltale absence of well... pretty much everything in LOTR except Humans would be an excelent indication that Tolkin intended his world to be seperate from ours in its history.
2.) The Gandalf/Eagle comment is almost below responding to, but here ya go. Three reasons, first because Mordor is infested with all kinds of creapy crawlies, some of them capable of flight (did you watch the 2nd movie?). This would hamper matters. Secondly, because Gandalf would be corrupted by the ring. Thirdly because this would remove one of the fundamental points of the book/movie. To paralell, why couldn't the Rebels simply carpet nuke the death star into scrap? What... they have light speed travel but no nuclear weapons?
You're basicly objecting to plot holes present in what is universaly reguarded as one of the greatest peices of literature created in the modern age. Perhaps you should lower your standards just a little.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall hearing from a couple of sources that Tolkien actually did intend for Middle-Earth to be the same earth that we stand on right now. After all, he was trying to provide a mythology for the Britons, whom he felt did not have a grand mythology in the same way as the Norse or the Romans. The only source that I can find at the moment is from here [dummies.com], but it does contain the following:
I'm sure that I can dig up more sources from "Letters of J.R. Tolkien" or other books should you require more evidence.
You're right that there aren't any elves, Maiar, or Valar around nowadays, but remember that they all reside in Valinor now, beyond the reaches of men. Sauron was defeated, Saruman's spirit was blown away by the wind from the west, and who knows what happened to the Ents, Trolls, and Orcs. The Fourth Age was the Age of Man, and here we still live.
No, of course it's not real, but it's still a wonderful fantasy - far beyond anything the movies showed you. My fellow readers of The Simarillion and The Bible would understand what I'm talking about when I say how much Tolkien's work paralleled Biblical creation.
Some spoilers here (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. It's supposed to occur in our "prehistory".
A lot of people seem to ask this.
The short answer is obviously "because then there's no story". Even if this is the only answer, it doesn't have to be an issue. For example, a lot of people enjoyed the first Matrix movie, even though its premise violates physical laws (since human bodies cannot generate more energy than is put into them).
However, there are perfectly reasonable justifications for why the "just fly an Eagle into Mordor" isn't going to work.
In your scenario, Gandalf flies an Eagle over Mount Doom and drops the Ring in. If you recall, Gandalf was unwilling to even touch the Ring in the first movie because he felt he would be unable to resist the temptation to use it. He felt that hobbits in general and Frodo in particular would be better able to resist the temptation. This is because they have very little ambition or desire for power, as well as having relatively little innate power.
However, even Frodo, when it came down to it, was incapable of throwing the Ring into the fire! Gandalf would have been even more unable to.
What would probably happen in your scenario, given how Tolkien has set up the story, is Gandalf would take the Ring, mount the Eagle, make it most of the way to Mount Doom, and say "Forget this throwing away business, you can all call me Lord Gandalf now." There is no way he (or anyone else, I would argue [except perhaps Bombadil]) would be capable of dropping it in.
Another difficulty with the Eagle scenario is that it's extremely blatant. There is no secrecy possible. This means Sauron would have perceived it immediately. His significant psychic/spiritual power would instantly been focused on preventing the destruction of the Ring, either by destroying, cowing, or deceiving the bearer.
These first points are derivable from the movies alone. The following one requires knowledge of the books.
The (giant) Eagles are not at the command of anyone in Middle-Earth. They are the servants of Manwe, who in Tolkien's legendarium is the head Vala (arch-angel kind of figures), the ruler of Middle-Earth. The Valar felt that defeating Sauron was the responsibility of the peoples of Middle-Earth themselves. They sent help in the form of the Wizards (including Gandalf and Saruman), but even they were not supposed to act directly, but only advise, guide, and prompt. So while it's acceptable for the Eagles (as Manwe's representatives) to assist the effort against Sauron in minor ways, they cannot act more directly.
Re:Some spoilers here (Score:3, Informative)
Actually if you read "The Hobbit" there is significant mention of the eagles not being at anyone's command. The only reason they help Gandalf and the dwarves escape the goblins in the Misty Mountains is to repay Gandalf for aiding them, not because they felt it was the "right" thing to do or were asked to do it out of the kindness of their he
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Funny)
Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well whenever you notice something like that.. a wizard did it!
Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04..
Lucy Lawless: Wizard!
Frink: Oh for glaven out loud..
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Informative)
And, there was much more to Gandalf's reluctance to touch the ring. Remember, Gandalf was no more human than Sauron or the Balrog were human -- he was an immortal. He was also part of the last song; it was impossible for him to fight directly against Sauron. He moved, he shaped, he cajoled, he prodded, but he took no direct action. Ever. That was the fate laid out for him at the dawn of the world.
Well, except against the Balrog. I guess Immortal Beings Created at the Dawn of Time can fight each other directly.
entwives? (Score:3, Interesting)
-Zipwow
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if Sauron sees him, the eagles are still faster than the nazgul...
You know, YOU cant give a good answer because Tolkien himself admitted that he used the eagles as Deus ex Machina.
Google cache to the rescue! (Score:4, Informative)
Fellowship of the Ring [216.239.57.104]
The Two Towers [216.239.57.104]
Sorry, Return of the King isn't cached yet...
Re:be kind (Score:5, Informative)
use this one instead [216.239.57.104]
Mods: please mod parent down, and this up.
Re:It's "TOO"... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Best quote from the intervew. (Score:3, Insightful)